rhino_patch

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, meaning the tool is not read-only, which aligns with a mutation operation. The description adds little beyond that—it doesn't mention that the tool creates a new surface, whether input curves are preserved, or what happens to the boundary curves. The description is not contradictory but is minimally informative about side effects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One short sentence is concise and front-loaded, but it's under-specified. It doesn't earn its place by conveying enough information. It is not verbose, but it misses key usage details that an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a surface-patching tool with no output schema details in the description and no param explanations, the description is inadequate. There is no mention of required curve conditions, how span_count affects the result, or what the tool returns. The description is too thin relative to the complexity of Rhino surface operations and the large sibling set.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters, but it only mentions 'boundary curves' without mapping to the boundary_curve_ids parameter. It gives no hint about span_count, name, layer, or doc_id. The schema itself has fields with some descriptions (like doc_id) but boundary_curve_ids and span_count lack explanatory text, and the tool description doesn't compensate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description says 'Patch a region defined by boundary curves,' which states the verb and resource, but the term 'patch' is domain-specific and could be confused with other surface-creation operations like rhinocmd_patch or rhino_plane_surface. It lacks detail on what kind of object is created or how it relates to siblings. The title 'Patch Surface' is absent from the description, so there is no explicit statement of the result being a surface.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like rhino_plane_surface, rhino_loft, rhino_network_surface, or rhino_cmd_patch. It doesn't mention prerequisites such as closed boundary curves or whether the boundary curves must be coplanar. An agent would have to infer usage from the name and parameters.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.